While I don't dismiss the idea that some humans might have some SLIGHT difference in their perceptual abilities; I find "electrosensitivity" as a (self) diagnosis to be poppy-cock.

Skeptoid has a good summary of what the science says about this: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4072

Namely: The symptoms seem to emerge when subjects THINK they are in the presence of wifi waves /cell phones, etc. and very little to do with the ACTUAL presence of the those things

While interesting, this tidbit:

She was presenting her case, and about ten minutes later she came up to me and says, ‘Arnie, someone has a cell phone on in here.'

The woman "finding" a cell phone doesn't prove jack. How many time must people who moved to this area have had episodes, where there was NO cell phone, or wifi, or whatever? This is selection bias, and anecdotal evidence does not convince me of a trend.

More importantly, I am curious as to why these people think that their symptoms started so suddenly (the ones mentioned in the article certainly sound like it). Wifi has been around for years. Cells phones, longer. And what about actual radio? Those broadcasts have been around for ages. Why the sudden onset of symptoms?

However, I do understand how psychosomatic conditions work, and I feel bad that these people are suffering.

The sheer level of delusion in some, however, leaves me amazed:

Monique is pretty convinced that her version of the science will prevail and that future generations will see the folly of iPhones and laptops just like past ones did asbestos and cigarettes.

Of course monique is convinced she is right. People don't walk around thinking they are wrong. EVEN IF it was PROVEN this condition was real (doubtful to me), the vast majority of the population does NOT suffer from this, and things like laptops and cells phones have completely changed how we live our lives. They are (even if we accept Monique's disease as "real") humongously useful, and irreplaceable. Cigarettes are purely recreational and a poor comparison, and asbestos, while it is/was useful, is harmful to everyone exposed in a specific way (though its danger is a bit exaggerated, admittedly). Neither even comes remotely close to how essential technology is to modern culture, and suggesting it would be viewed in a similar light as a cigarette is laughable.

Not saying I'm super convinced one way or the other, but I enjoy entertaining this train of thought.

If we take as a given the following things

1. There are currently organisms that can detect parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans cannot.

1.1 There are mammals that can detect parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans cannot.

2. Humans are still having micromutations that cause drastic variation within the species. (Peanut allergies, etc)

3. Organisms evolve sensory organs according to the stimuli of their surroundings, and lose them in similar fashion (Deep-sea adapted fish, losing eyesight and gaining greater electro-perception, in the absence of light, and presence of bio-electric fields)

4. A relatively small number of individuals in a population need to gain an evolutionary advantage over their rivals for the changes in the allele frequency in the species to shift drastically and quickly(Generationally speaking) in the favor of the individuals with the new sense, permanently changing the species, or causing a speciation event.

It's not hard to make a leap and hypothesize that

A. There is an evolutionary advantage to being able to detect wider ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum.

B. Random mutations can create additional senses complex organisms, over time.

C. Because there are so many humans exposed to high levels of certain wavelengths of radiation, some of them may eventually gain some ability to perceive additional wavelengths outside of the 'human norm' (Which is a range, with women seeing more colors than men, on average. )

D. There may eventually be a significant evolutionary advantage to being able to perceive more of the EM spectrum.